The UK Daily Telegraph carried this interesting article, which may be relevant to this thread, last week.

Government in secret talks about strike against Iran

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 02/04/2006)

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences
of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders
fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

Tomorrow's meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence
intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.

What a year this is gona be. Iam glad to see that russia said today that it is somewhat behind the us and the eu now after iran announced that it has
enriched uranium. I hope that Iran has not made a promise to china that if attacked iran would give them oil for military support.

I don't buy it. I think the US will attack Iran at some point, but it won't be for a few months at least. Unless they have some evidence that Iran
is about to do something serious, like nuke Israel, the US won't really have a leg to stand on.

This reminds me of the hooker thread about how the usa is going to nuked in the coming days. The sad part is you really put anything past this
administration, that's the only reason threads like this stay around.

To the best of my knowledge threatening the use of force, or the use of force, by means of nuclear weapons is illegal under international law unless
in self defence so I guess it would just be another crime the bush administration has committed unless they engineer a new terrorist attack? I
sincerely doubt that Bush takes any notice of this anyway!

Focus: Gunning for Iran
Against the odds, America is said to be planning a military strike on Iran. Sarah Baxter reports from Washington

It is seven o’clock in the morning eastern standard time when the news comes through to Americans at their breakfast tables. President George W Bush
will shortly be addressing the nation live from the Oval Office. Moments later he is on air, announcing in a sombre drawl that Iran’s nuclear sites
have been struck during the night by American bombers.

“You can see the shape of the speech the president will give,” said Richard Perle, a leading American neo-conservative. “He will cite the
Iranians’ past pattern of deception, their support for terrorism and the unacceptable menace the nation would present if it had nuclear weapons.

“The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened. The only question would be what the Iranians might do in retaliation.”

Sounds far-fetched? Think again. The unthinkable, or what Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, described only a few weeks ago as “inconceivable”, is
now being actively planned in the Pentagon.

"war crime", what kind of non sense is that? us, war crime......what a bunch of whiney crap!!!we were attacked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! war crime, yeah
right. remember the two towers? the U.S.S cole. countless embassies over sea's. countless American's being killed, kidnaped, held for
ransom.......war crime for a preimptive attack on Iran? HAHAHAHA....good NUKE them!!!!oh, i said the "N", word,....waaa....boo-hoo.......we get
taken advantage of all the time, we get attacked all the time, our citizens get attacked all the time, its about time we stood up and did something
about it."oh what about the innocent people".....yeah like the ones in the two towers....NUKE THEM TILL THEY GLOW!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by V Kaminski
I find the links Nygdan posted concerning but not conclusive...

Nygdan is level headed and he goes straight to the heart of matters.
If he says the poster has a 'history' and not to buy it ... then that's
enough for me.

Ya'll .. don't worry about it. Someday it's going to happen and when
it does there isn't a freak'n thing you can do about it. It's out of your
hands. Go out and enjoy the spring day .. get some fresh air .. relax.

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
To the best of my knowledge threatening the use of force, or the use of force, by means of nuclear weapons is illegal under international
law

It is agains the rules of the UN for member nations to threaten war upon one another. The United States has not actually threatened IRan, it has, in
all public speeches, called for a diplomatic solution, unlike say, iran, that has called for Israel to be destroyed, for example.

The opinion you cite is not binding, its an advisement in the opinion of the World Court, not a Statute of the World Court, Statues are binding to all
UN Members, advisements are not. Advisements are where an organization in the UN requests the World Courts opinion and advise on matters, not where it
proulgates statutes [as per the infalliable and holy wikipedia
(pbuh) ].

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
BTW the National Intellegence Estimate says it will be at least 5-10 years before Iran could make a bomb...

these are the guys that the president is SUPPOSED to listen to...
so Iran having Nukes is NOT a justification for attack...

Is the Iranian Oil Bourse a reason?

If we attack due to "nuke" threats, then IMO it is for exactly the opposite reason...

In regards to Mehran (sorry for the misspelling)
I doubt they are the same person... But why not ask him... he seems nice enough...
and Mehran: i wouldn't bother repeating this info in country, until we know more...
I am sure people see that hype and fear is not what is needed, albiet it is what the disseminators of this want...
so dont be a tool of a possible disinfo campaign...

Personally, I think that there will be another, larger attack on the US that is bigger than 9/11 coming sometime soon and Iran will be blamed,
regardless of the actual source of the attack. That creates enough outrage in the public to go and hit Iran.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations[...]The Security Council shall determine the existence of
any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken

A crime against peace, in international law, consists of starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or
sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties, agreements or (legally binding) assurances

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.